Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2748-1002429399-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 06 Oct 2001 21:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24622 invoked by uid 510); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000 Received: from n16.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.66) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2748-1002429399-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by n16.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Oct 2001 04:36:39 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 65132 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Oct 2001 04:36:37 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id VAA26175 for iwar@onelist.com; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:36:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200110070436.VAA26175@big.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:The.United.States.Adopts.a.Political.Agenda.Rather.Than.a.Principled.One] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The United States Adopts a Political Agenda Rather Than a Principled One by Professor M. Kahl** Americans attempting to cross the divide between fear, revenge, and nationalistic fervor are faced with a dilemma, for the United States administration speaks with two voices diametrically opposed. One voice speaks of fighting the forces of evil (terror) and pressuring the world into an alignment by supporting the United States in its quest for universal justice and morality and for placing the countries that do not share this point of view on the side of the terrorists. The other voice uses great words, bold words, yet unfortunately with no substance as this United States Administration proceeds with aligning itself with the very countries that sponsor terrorism and in doing so has removed morality from its character. Rather than morality, we find cynicism, rather than justice, we find a Faustian bargain of major magnitude, rather than a far reaching plan to halt the underlying reasons for terrorism, we find the United States aligning itself with the very nations that sponsor terrorism, rather than adopt a stance that promises the American public freedom from fear, we find the ubiquitous demon of inside the beltway politics forming the United States agenda. Americans have no choice but to support the United States administration as it possibly plans on attacking the western slopes of the Himalaya mountains in its pursuit of Usama Bin Ladin. Yet, what is Bin Ladin except a wraith, a spirit, a metaphor, whose Jihad laden spirit is well infused into his many followers, and his followers are in the millions, despite efforts of the United States Administration to mesmerize its citizenry to into believing otherwise. Of course, we are not at war with Islam, Islam is at war with us. At best, Bin Ladin will be destroyed and to what effect? Arab media have been describing his replacement in that event and numerous replacements proposed. The United States may strike and recent reports reveal that the United States and Uzbek military have drawn up plans for air strikes on Al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, though strict secrecy is observed for fear of terrorist attacks on potential United States bases in Uzbekistan. The United States army special purpose forces in interaction with Uzbek troops, also with forces of the anti-Taliban coalition, are expected to attack the terror camps in Afghanistan. Additionally, reports from the region are that the price on Bin Ladin’s head is now at 1 billion dollars. Bin Ladin’s direct coterie are composed of many nationalities, and he surrounds himself with some 300 dedicated followers who come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Algeria, and Jordan. He dispensed with the services of Afghans, Somalis, and Kashmiris, in the wake of the attack on his headquarters in the Khost region in August 1998 that the United States mounted in retaliation for the bombing of the US Embassies in Dar -Salaam and in Nairobi. The United States has an opportunity to strike him if its human intelligence is accurate yet how accurate can it be since numerous intelligence reports indicate that Bin Ladin, obviously not stupid, moves frequently from sanctuary to sanctuary. The United States has had ample opportunity to hunt this man down and found itself spending hundreds of million of dollars to launch cruise missiles at empty hill tops under President Bill Clinton. What can we expect if the United States does indeed launch a strike? The terrain is impossible to invade as previous invaders discovered to their sorrow and when we add in compounding factors such as the start of winter in about three weeks that usually drops the temperature down to minus 40 degrees below zero (without wind chill) and an acknowledgment that approximately one million land mines are strewn throughout the country, without anyone knowing their location, an invasion is out of the question. A strike using the Pentagon’s favorite aphorism -- a surgical strike – is the only path open along with possibly saturation bombing to assist the camera’s of CNN in recording an American victory. Sources also point out that the Pentagon has not ruled out tactical nuclear weapons or neutron weapons as a last resort for remote mountainous regions as we can safely assume that is where Bin Ladin is hiding. Can Bin Ladin leave Afghanistan? The answer to that is probably not as a major reason is that Afghanistan is a landlocked nation and Bin-Ladin's departure overland is virtually impossible as he would be an easy target for the countries lying in wait for him Afghanistan is bordered in the northeast and the northwest by Central Asian republics where the Russians maintain a strong intelligence presence, as the Russians have been at pains to keep any Arab or Afghan radical Islamists from moving into these republics. The border with Iran is also seen as a remote prospect, for the Iranians know it’s in their best interests to disassociate themselves from any suspicion of being sponsors of terror. To escape to Pakistan where Bin-Ladin has the most support is particularly dangerous, for agents working on behalf of the CIA inside Pakistan, plus other operatives working for other secret services, are ubiquitous and alert. Afghanistan has land borders with China and the borders of the two nations meet at the predominantly Muslim Chinese province of Ksing Yang where bin-Ladin would be welcome. Yet, it appears problematical that Bin Ladin would go there as China is concerned this province is problem enough without a charismatic Islamic leader coming to incite a Muslim minority against the central government in Beijing and promote its secession. Observers also point out that Bin-Ladin's departure from Afghanistan would cut him off from his United States arsenal that he had acquired from the United States during the jihad that he mounted against the Soviet army. These weapons may include weapons that few other nations possess. Diplomatic sources argue that Bin-Ladin's departure from Afghanistan would add up to virtual suicide. They point out that there is no place on earth that can match Afghanistan's mountainous terrain as a safe haven from any missile, land, or air attack, that the United States might launch. Bin-Ladin is known to be familiar with all the mountain passes throughout the country, a knowledge that he acquired from the days of his jihad against Soviet forces. He is said to be able to seek shelter in places that would prove too elusive for even the strongest military power in the world as they know very little about this area. All these factors lead up to an American declared victory that will leave behind the residue of all the factors that spell out the decline of the United States on the world scene. Unfortunately, paralleling this decline will be the fall of true American allies such as Israel. That President Bush lost the war and that President Bush lost the war is clear as in Desert Storm the result was to unite all the Arab countries against the United States and this is measured by their deeds, not by their words. Bush will spend billions in pursuing Bin Laden and economically drain the United States in doing so, leading to the question-- is it worth it? Is the pursuit of one man, no matter how evil, worth, for instance, surrendering prescription drug benefits for seniors? Is it worth plunging the United States into a possible recession in this pursuit of a symbol representing a philosophy birthed in Saudi Arabia and nurtured in all Arab countries and supported by most Islamic countries? Can the survival of the United States as a world power dedicated to democracy and justice for all be compromised by the fiction of forming a necessary coalition involving all Arab and Muslim countries no matter how abysmal their record on terror, no matter their refusal to allow the United States to use United States bases on their soil to attack Bin Ladin? Can the United States administration honestly say that by allowing Syria on the Security Council, it assists the United States in it’s pursuit of evil? President Bush’s words foreshadow his defeat in 1994 as his father ‘s words (“read my lips, no new taxes”) before him. And in doing so, he will hurt the Republicans in Congress as they are caught up in bind for they must support the leader of their party, especially in light of next year’s elections. As TV’s favorite chef intones, “pork rules.” Can President Bush survive as he uses this tragic episode to attack the only true friend the United States has in the region: Israel. Israel must be viewed not as Jewish State returning to its ancestral homeland but curiously enough as a metaphor of a Western Christian State representing western morality and western democracy. Israel with a land area less than the State of New Jersey and a population of about five million Jews certainly cannot pose a threat to a world wide Islamic population of about one and a half billion. This Israeli threat is imaginary for Israel’s offense is that it reversed Islamic hegemony that says that once Islam places any part of the world under Islamic dominion that land is forever Islamic. That cannot be, therefore Israel must be destroyed and political expediency (after all the Jews of Florida almost cost Bush the election) leads this administration to embark on the path to Israel’s demise. The plan to destroy Israel pre-dated the bombings in NY City and Washington as revealed in the last few days by Secretary of State Powell’s initiative to impose restraints on Israel, called off due to the bombings, and President Bush’s recent remark supporting a Palestinian State. Following that in quick sequence was the release by the Voice of Jordan saying that King Abdallah was promised that the United States would not attack any Arab country. The statement was quickly denied by Foggy Bottom, yet it has surfaced again and was confirmed by Egyptian government news agency MENA (October 3, 2001) who reported that Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said that the United States would not attack any Arab country. Maher additionally revealed that President Hosni Mubarak and President Bush had exchanged messages concerning these issues before the September 11 attacks. The current activation of the US role in the Palestinian question is the product of these communications and overtures from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The attack on Israel’s sovereignty continued and within the last two days, reports have surfaced that the United States has plans for forcing Israel to surrender much of its strategic assets, enough so to foreshadow the demise of Israel if all is given away as planned. The first report was by Israel’s Channel two political correspondent Immanuel Rosen; the second report was by Steve Rodan’s Middle East Newsline and the third was by the Saudi newspaper Abha Al-Watan. Al-Watan reported on October 4, 2001 that United States and Arab diplomatic sources revealed that Bush's support for establishing a independent Palestinian state was due to a secret agreement reached between the United States Administration and a major Arab country, backed by other countries, before the terrorist attack on New York and Washington on September 11. The secret agreement stipulates that Bush, or Powell, will in an official speech at the UN General Assembly declare his support for the establishment of a Palestinian state and additional details for the administration’s view of the method of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict.The United States Administration will announce its method of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and resolving the method of settling the major outstanding issues, notably Jerusalem, the fate of refugees, the future of Israeli settlements, and the method of establishing the Palestinian state, including its borders in Gaza and the West Bank. Al-Watan also reported that Bush took the Arab request to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict seriously and called two meetings before the September 11 attack to examine the method of responding to the Arab proposals. Powell supported this Arab request and called for correction of the United States policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and supported declaring support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. While CIA Director George Tenet backed up Powell's position, other officials, including Condoleezza Rice, objected to declaring support for the establishment of a Palestinian state prior to bringing Palestinian-Israeli confrontations to a complete halt and resuming the Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation. President Bush halted the dispute and issued instructions to Colin Powell to prepare the text of an official speech presenting the United States Administration's support for setting up a Palestinian state and also this administration's view of the method of settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Al-Watan reported that former United States President George Bush Sr. is currently playing an important, undeclared role in encouraging the United States President to give top priority to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and reversing PM Ariel Sharon's policies as two essential conditions. Additionally, Al-Watan reported that Powell has finished a new speech that he plans to deliver soon. The speech declares United States support for the establishment of a Palestinian state and includes the US views of the method of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Al Watan also reported that there is a strong possibility that the Bush administration will take the important step of appointing a special United States envoy to the Middle East who will be assigned the file of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Toward this end, Powell recently met for this purpose with Edward Djerijian, former US assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs Djerijian. Djerijian is currently studying this offer and he is refusing to publicly discuss it or comment on it. The details of the United States proposal as revealed by the other two sources calls for an independent, Palestinian state, division of Jerusalem into eastern and western sectors, Temple Mount turned over the Palestinians, and the halt in all Israeli construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. MENA reported that Egypt and Saudi Arabia initiated this proposal. This United States approach is beyond comprehension as it not only surrenders the moral fibre of the United States to terrorism, inasmuch as the United States is attempting to form alliances with the very nations that bred this global disease. Are there half way solutions to a rapidly metastasizing cancer that threatens the entire West? The answer is clearly no and all must take a principled stand and a very practical one if we are to survive as a people and survive as a nation. We must say no to any alliances with countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and all the other tyrannical and despotic regimes that form the fabric of the Middle East. Countries such as the Sudan, Lebanon and Syria are subjecting their Christian inhabitants to ethnic cleansing and displacement from their homelands. They must be the focus of United States anger and surrender their terrorist components in much the same fashion as we demanded from the Taliban. We must support the replacing of these terror groups by adopting the same approach we have in Afghanistan when we formed an alliance with Mohammed Shah, the ex-King. The Pahlevi family should be encouraged to return to Iran, the Mother of All Terrorism, and replace the present government with a democratic government, one friendly to the West. Continue supporting the opposition in Iraq and Syria as then, once and for all, terror will be halted from this region. Yasir Arafat? Remove him from the area, place him in a cell next to Slobodan Milosevic and remove his yoke from his people and establish free elections. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, HizbAllah, and the other 25 plus terror organizations based in Damascus must be disbanded and margenalized. Freedom is not available to all, and freedom from terror must be the heritage of every American. President Bush, your drums of war are loud and furious, but then again, we all know what’s inside a drum. ** Director Lebanese Foundation for Peace ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more! http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:54 PST